On Tuesday, a three-person USOC panel granted U.S. Soccer's motion to dismiss
Hope Solo's complaint that the federation is in violation of USOC by-laws and provisions of the Stevens Act, which
governs national governing bodies.
Hope Solo v. USSF: The Complaint It was granted on the basis that she has not
exhausted her administrative remedies -- if she has a complaint with U.S. Soccer about how it operates, she needs to first to take it up with the federation and file a grievance, going through its
grievance procedures (Section 703), and if she doesn't like that decision she can then take her complaint to the USOC to the extent it will hear the case.
Solo argued the U.S. Soccer
grievance procedure was flawed in that it utilizes the American Arbitration Association (AAA) as an arbiter and would cause her unnecessary delay.
The panel's view:
“In reviewing USSF's internal grievance process, the Hearing Panel finds that it is fair and impartial, time driven with deadlines that must be met and not overly complicated…USSF
should not be faulted for utilizing the AAA to administer, or having AAA and CAS arbitrators hear and decide, claims against it. The Hearing Panel recognizes the concerted and purposeful effort USSF
made to utilize the AAA to administer claims of noncompliance and to have AAA and CAS arbitrators hear and render a ruling on such claims. This was done to ensure a fair and impartial
process.” The three-person panel -- USOC board member
Jim Benson, US Ski and Snowboard chief legal officer
Alex Natt and former pairs skater
Mark Ladwig --
said it was confident U.S. Soccer's grievance procedure will offer her a "prompt and equitable" hearing.
The panel said Solo did not show any urgency to hear her complaint or harm that
she has suffered. It also rejected the argument that it would be duplicative to have the AAA first hear her case in the U.S. Soccer grievance process and later if she appealed a USOC ruling to the AAA
via the USOC's remedies for a complaint like the one Solo wants to bring under Section 10 of its
dispute
resolution procedures.
The panel denied U.S. Soccer's claim for costs and attorney's fees.
There is an inherent conflict of interest in submitting a complaint about the federation to the federation. Without evaluating the merits or the source, the USOC has once again abrogated its responsibilities.